"m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> writes: > On 5 août 2012, at 12:37, Joseph Rushton Wakeling > <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > >> On 02/08/12 17:51, Graham Percival wrote: >>> In short: if there is a concerted effort to create a "quick >>> render" output, I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn't at >>> least 10 times faster than the current output. >> >> (1) How paralellized is the current code -- and if not much or at >> all, what do you think the scope is for doing so? E.g. once basic >> pagination is in place, could all other elements be engraved in >> separate per-page threads? Likewise, any parts of a score separated >> by an explicit page break could be engraved by separate threads. >> > > LilyPond currently only works on a single thread and the code base is > definitely not optimized for parallel processing.
What's up with lilypond -djob-count=4 ... ? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
